Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 20th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby two applications filed by the appellants herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, registered as is No. 5642/2004 in CS(OS) No. 945/2004 titled R. Damodar and Ors. v. Andhra Association, Delhi (Regd.) and Ors. and is Nos. 7848-49/2004 in CS (OS) No. 1328/2004 titled P. Subba Rao and Ors. v. Andhra Association, Delhi (Regd.) and Ors. were dismissed. As in both these appeals the appellants are challenging the common order dated 20th December, 2006 and the reliefs sought for are also similar, we dispose of these two appeals by this common judgment and order.

2. The aforesaid applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction were filed in the aforesaid two suits, challenging the election process of the Andhra Association (respondent No. 1 herein). The records placed before us clearly disclose and establish that the suit of Shri R. Damodar and others was filed earlier than the suit filed by Shri P. Subba Rao and others with an identical subject-matter. In Suit No. 945/2004 filed by Shri R. Damodar and others, the following reliefs were sought for in the injunction application being is No. 5642/2004:

a) This Honble Court may be pleased to restrain defendants from carrying on and holding elections of Defendant No. 1 Association on 5.9.2004.

b) Direct the defendants to hand over the records of the Association regarding the existing and enrolled members, either by the Association itself or through Branch Secretaries/Chairman/Vice Chairman/Joint Secretaries of the various Branches to an administrator/Officer appointed by this Honble Court for the purpose of scrutiny and to hold the elections, after including all the legitimate members of the Association.

.3. The said application was filed on 31st August, 2004 and by filing the aforesaid application, the appellants prayed for an interim order restraining the respondents / defendants herein from carrying on and holding elections of the Andhra Association on 5th September, 2004. When the said suit was listed before the learned Single Judge, while issuing summons in the suit, notice was issued on the injunction application and the statement of the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs was also recorded to the following effect:

-Shri S.Madhusudan Babu is directed not to declare the results till further Orders of this Court. Mr.Sood further submits that the Plaintiff believes that the election will not be conducted in a fair manner. He presses for the appointment of an Observer who would independently report the proceedings to this Court.

.4. However, so far as the prayer restraining the holding of the election was concerned, the learned Single Judge passed a specific order holding that as the election process had already commenced, it would not be appropriate or in fact necessary to interdict the holding of the elections. The learned Single Judge also observed that serious disputes had been raised and, thereforee, the Returning Officer was directed not to disclose the results till further orders of the Court. The learned Single Judge, as it appears, accepted the prayer of the counsel appearing

.for the appellants / plaintiffs for appointment of an Observer and appointed a Court Observer with a direction that he should be present during the course of election. The said order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 2nd September, 2004. Consequent to the said order, election for electing the office bearers to the aforesaid Association was held as per schedule on 5th September, 2004 but the election results were not declared.

.5. Thereafter, the other suit, namely, CS(OS) No. 1328/2004 was filed by Shri P. Subba Rao and others in which also an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. In the said application, the